I get that but in this case though this codebase has safety guarantees baked in via the Hindley–Milner (HM) type system whereas your python code base did not. Additionally there's a published, peer reviewed paper for this software that serves as a written specification. Those two things are fantastic resources when coming up to speed with an unfamiliar codebase.
I’m an old school strong, static typing proponent (strong typing shall rise again!) but I laugh at the notion that it protects you from crypto attacks.
Are you a maintainer or an armchair critic? I hope the latter, because if you think type safety is anything more than necessary but insufficient, then that’s number three.
Did he say it defends you against crypto attacks? It does defend you against a lot of attacks that would still endanger the system. Think denial of service attacks for exemple. Extremely easy in Python because bugs don't get caught at compile time.
The way I read it: In practice it's easy to DOS the server even if it's written in that language for which was here claimed to have a property of protecting from DOS. Especially due to the pooor scalability of it.
